Since when have they cared about laws and other people's rights if it doesn't agree with their opinions that think greater than anyone else that they break many laws in the past, be violent and generally just obnoxious.

I'm sure we will have to just put up with them for some more time for the tantrum to pass like the worst unworldly wise small town spoilt teenager.

GREAT MOVE! Those terrorist are becoming a pest. Wales are meant to be eaten. If they weren't, why did god make them so delicious? I think the UN should ban them from going after the Japanese whalers once and for all.

The only thing the US has said, is what side they're on and that if they break this injunction then if they are in the flag state of the USA they will be arrested. In international waters or 'high seas' they are in free waters. Only piracy is subject to special persecution.

zichiDec. 19, 2012 - 07:42AM JST
The US have no powers to decide or enforce this decision in International waters.

Correct. But the US court has the power to issue arrest warrants for Contempt of Court.
Not a nice thing to have floating around when SSCS is headquarted in Washington State.
You can bet alot of video will taken and Sea Sheperds attacks all documented.

Good to know everyone is sticking to law and order. Regardless of cause or own beliefs terrorist activities should never be tolerated. Funding for SS is better spent for lobbying or PR for cut in related subsidies which is more in line with Japan's national interest rather than attacks in dangerous waters or criticism of entire country.

YuriOtaniDec. 19, 2012 - 08:04AM JST
"Akemi you like whale? It is like disgusting was forced fed it as a kid."

You prefer Irabu and Mimiga??

So what gives that American court the right to make such a ruling? Non American ships in international water, their arrogance is beyond all belief!

The word is Jurisdiction. SSCS is an organization existing under the laws of the State of Washington, which
happens to be in the United States.The flags of the ships are irrelevant, the injuctive order pertains to the members
of SSCS. The only arrogance is that of the eco-terrorust Sea Shepherd organization who believe they are above the
las of any country, starting with the fat fugitive wanted by Interpol leader.

I wonder if it would be possible to use sounds (similar to mid,low-frequency navy sonar) to warn the whales off, rather than engaging with the whaling ships? Just be careful not to beach the whales. That should make everyone happy, right?

No. Because that wouldn't make good TV, and that is all that Watson is concerned about= getting his fat face on TV.

The US have no powers to decide or enforce this decision in International waters.

True. But would this mean that Animal Planet (and whomever owns them) could be held liable for providing financial aid, if SS breaches the order? Are they still making that Whale Wars show? Their raw footage would make for a treasure trove of evidence, if they are still filming.

Does SS have any legal status in the US? Are they a registered Charity, for instance? Would they risk losing tax-deductable status for donation?

Sorry if those questions have been address above. I'll read the thread a bit later.

Completely meaningless decision by the court. Since when does a US court have jurisdiction on events that take place in international waters. I say SS should take about as much notice of this court decision as the Japanese whalers take of the Australian federal court ruling banning them from whaling in the southern ocean.

This order is not worth the paper it is written on. It is like New Zealand telling Siria to stop fighting. Of course, SS will ignore this order. It will be interesting to see how Japan reacts if the international court votes in favor or Australia.

If SS is a US registered organization and found guilty then I believe the Japanese Government can make request to force compensation from SS through freezing asset within the US related financial institutions.

If SS is a US registered organization and found guilty then I believe the Japanese Government can make request to force compensation from SS through freezing asset within the US related financial institutions.

That would be a very slippery road indeed. Given that every year the Japanese are in breach of the Australian Federal court ruling regarding their whaling activities lm not sure that would be the road best taken. Just incase someone starts demanding reparations from the Japanese in regards to their breach of Australian law. Oh how l would love my government to grow a spine and seize the Japanese whaling fleet for these breaches. Now that would end your little whaling adventures for some time now wouldnt it???

mtwildmanDec. 19, 2012 - 10:12AM JST
@HariHaruka...the lives endangered at sea are the whales...if whalers get in trouble due to folks trying to save whale lives so be it...when you cross a line be prepared for consequences.

Yes, but it also goes both ways. If some activist happens to get hurt or even dies trying to save these whale then that's just the way the ball bounces. The problem with trying rationalize violence the way you are attempting to do is that things can quickly spin beyond the control of either side. I'm not a fan of whaling, but if the whalers (with the support of the Japanese government) really started to up the ante, the activists wouldn't stand a chance. Right now, theactivists get away with what they are doing simply because they know that the whalers have much more to lose if things really get out of hand. Once the whalers (or the Japanese government) now longer feel that way, then activist's activities will pretty much be over immediately.

Sure the French got lots of heat for the Rainbow Warrior, but after 30+ years France is still around, the agents involved served minimal prison time, minor compensation was paid, and the case has pretty much been closed. However, the photographer killed during the sinking is still dead and his daughter is still looking for answers as to why.

Victory for right over wrong & rule of law prevails. Also, there is this matter of fugitive Paul Watson. An arrest-on-sight order should be have been issued. I will be licking my lips at the prospect of whale sashimi soon!

The 9th Circuit realizes that the Watson and his crew can pretty much ignore this ruling at will. Of course, the judges involved know this. It has nothing to do with being arrogant.

This injunction is just telling the SSCS that if you or anyone affiliated with you violate this injunction and we catch you in an area where US law applies, then you will have to face the consequences. It's not so much an attempt to directly stop Watson's activities as it is an attempt to discourage any American citizens or American businesses from supporting them finacially or otherwise. SSCS has been put on notice (pending appeal) that their ability to operate in areas under US control has just been severely restricted. Of course, other countries around the world can just ignore it, and the SSCS can jsut pack their bags and move their headquarters some place else. The 9th District knows all that.

SamuraiBlue: "If SS is a US registered organization and found guilty then I believe the Japanese Government can make request to force compensation from SS through freezing asset within the US related financial institutions."

Why ask for compensation when the government can just take money out of the mouths of victims in the north for the sake of whaling?

YuriOtaniDec. 19, 2012 - 11:21AM JST
aisai this is why the USA is in trouble around the world, extreme arrogance.

This injunction has nothing to do with arrogance. All it says it that if you want to play on the US's court then you have to play by the US's rules. This injunction is primarily meant to discourage Americans and American businesses from financially supporting the activities of the SSCS. If the US government or any other government around the world really wanted to elminate Watson, et al as a problem because he was considered a real threat, it would have been done a long time ago. This just an attempt to make the SSCS's lives a little more difficult by taking away any safe haven they might have had within the US or it's territories.

There is no legal justification for the court to make a ruling. Their authority is limited to within the USA. A Japanese court would have more authority since the whalers ships are Japanese. Why does a Japanese court issue this ruling? Why go to the USA?

Actually it has everything to do with arrogance. What right does the US courts have to say what someone or some group can do in international waters thousands of kilometers from the nearest US territory.

I really wonder what would have happened if the Judge had have ordered the Japanese to stop their whaling until the court case was resolved? Would the Japanese have listened? Doubtful....

And given that the SS vessels should stay 500 meters from the Japanese how about the Japanese. WHat about them chasing and tailing SS vessels into foreign territorial waters? Thats ok is it?

Just save all the issues and sink the Japanese vessels once and for all. Make everyones life a lot easier.

Given that every year the Japanese are in breach of the Australian Federal court ruling regarding their whaling activities lm not sure that would be the road best taken. Just incase someone starts demanding reparations from the Japanese in regards to their breach of Australian law. Oh how l would love my government to grow a spine and seize the Japanese whaling fleet for these breaches. Now that would end your little whaling adventures for some time now wouldnt it?

They can't pass judgement over fishing done in international waters outside the economic zone, which the Japanese ships, manned by only Japanese citizens, always are in. If the Japanese ships were to dock in Australia with the whales onboard, it might be different due to import laws, their actions are not in breach of Australian laws that can be enforced.

And I guess you also forgot that Sea Shepard is in violation of the laws of Australia and NZ as well.

aisaiDec. 19, 2012 - 11:02AM JST

The 9th Circuit realizes that the Watson and his crew can pretty much ignore this ruling at will. Of course, the judges involved know this.

This injunction is just telling the SSCS that if you or anyone affiliated with you violate this injunction and we catch you in an area where US law applies, then you will have to face the consequences.

In the case of US citizens, the law applies worldwide. Watson himself isn't a US citizen (canadian), but there are likely plenty of members of those ships that are. While I doubt the crew would care about being charged for breaking the law, since few if any eco-terrorists do, it might discourage young, hot-headed kids from joining (or at least make their parents angry enough to make a difference)

It's not so much an attempt to directly stop Watson's activities as it is an attempt to discourage any American citizens or American businesses from supporting them finacially or otherwise.

Yes, as well as to leave legal groundwork to strip them of tax-exempt status once and for all.

zichiDec. 19, 2012 - 11:25AM JST
So according to the ruling, if a whaling ship was sinking and a Sea Shepherd ship went to the rescue, the crew would be arrested when they entered American waters?

If their actions somehow were responsible for the sinking then most likely yes. If it was purely a rescue effort on their part then possibly no. They could, however, possibly be arrested if their were any outstanding warrents or whatever for matters unrelated to the sinking though. Most likely the crew of the Sea Shephard would take all of this into account when deciding whose waters to enter.

YuriOtaniDec. 19, 2012 - 11:33AM JST
There is no legal justification for the court to make a ruling. Their authority is limited to within the USA. A Japanese court would have more authority since the whalers ships are Japanese. Why does a Japanese court issue this ruling? Why go to the USA?

Because that is where the SSCS's headquarters are located. If the SSCS were headquarters in Japan, then that's were the legal battle would be fought.

They can't pass judgement over fishing done in international waters outside the economic zone, which the Japanese ships, manned by only Japanese citizens, always are in.

Actually they can and they have. This case was tried several years ago and the Japanese lost the case. The only thing is the government has been to spineless to uphold the ruling despite numerous parties calling on them to do so. They are even that spineless that they do not seize Japanese vessels that enter our waters. Yet every year they seize numerous vessels of other nations for fishing or entering our waters illegally.

If the Japanese ships were to dock in Australia with the whales onboard, it might be different due to import laws, their actions are not in breach of Australian laws that can be enforced.

Actually if you did your research you would find that like other nations Australia bans whaling vessels from its waters. Not just vessels with whales on board but vessels involved in the activity of whaling.

And I guess you also forgot that Sea Shepard is in violation of the laws of Australia and NZ as well.

And what laws would they be Basroil, please point out exactly what Australian and NZ laws SS has broken. Then please explain if they are breaching laws why do these countries host the SS vessels. Infact why has one been docked here up until it recently departed?

They can't as they have no jurisdiction. The Japanese fleet is not in violation of any international maritime laws, and since they are registered in Japan, Australia can only enforce local laws in local waters (they can make a case against fishing in the economic exclusive zone, but only to the UN, and attempt to capture only in territorial waters), everything else is just fuming with no legal authority to do so.

Outta hereDec. 19, 2012 - 11:36AM JST
Actually it has everything to do with arrogance. What right does the US courts have to say what someone or some group can do in international waters thousands of kilometers from the nearest US territory.

Nope nothing to do with arrogance.

I really wonder what would have happened if the Judge had have ordered the Japanese to stop their whaling until the court case was resolved? Would the Japanese have listened? Doubtful....

Nope, they probably wouldn't. Just like the SSCS doesn't have to listen if they don't want to as well.

And given that the SS vessels should stay 500 meters from the Japanese how about the Japanese. WHat about them chasing and tailing SS vessels into foreign territorial waters? Thats ok is it?

The SSCS is completely capable of trying to get a court to issue an injuction on their behalf. If this injuction is upheld, the Japanese will have no need to go within 500 metres of any of the SSCS vessels.

Just save all the issues and sink the Japanese vessels once and for all. Make everyones life a lot easier.

Whose everyone? Who do you really think is going to win if this confrontation escalates into something uber violent? The Japanese have more of everything. The activists wouldn't survive any type government sanctioned military operations against them.

They can't as they have no jurisdiction. The Japanese fleet is not in violation of any international maritime laws, and since they are registered in Japan, Australia can only enforce local laws in local waters (they can make a case against fishing in the economic exclusive zone, but only to the UN, and attempt to capture only in territorial waters), everything else is just fuming with no legal authority to do so.

Well lm sorry but when it comes to legal issues l tend to believe the Australian Federal Court ruling over your say so.

before, US seems to tolerate the Sea Shepherd, but now I'm glad about this. but would SS and Paul "Whale" Watson be arrested and return to Germany, he did break the law and is a fugitive, is he not? and all Sea Shepherd are co-conspirators, or accessory(?).

But I wonder if US would follow through, or that Interpol or German authorities would take action.

The US is claiming legal rights without permission of the people of the effected territories.

US laws apply on top of local laws for all US citizens and registered companies. They are not claiming any legal rights IN other places, rather just claiming the same restrictions their people and companies that absolutely all countries enforce.

If SS is a US registered organization and found guilty then I believe the Japanese Government can make request to force compensation from SS through freezing asset within the US related financial institutions.

That would be a very slippery road indeed. Given that every year the Japanese are in breach of the Australian Federal court ruling regarding their whaling activities lm not sure that would be the road best taken. Just incase someone starts demanding reparations from the Japanese in regards to their breach of Australian law. Oh how l would love my government to grow a spine and seize the Japanese whaling fleet for these breaches. Now that would end your little whaling adventures for some time now wouldnt it???

Any agreement between Japan and America has nothing to do with Australia. The Japanese whaling fleet has broken no Australian laws.

It would be cheaper for the taxpayers if Japan stopped its whaling in the Southern Oceans. According to one recent post on JT only 12% of Japanese bought whale meat in the last 12 months, so the majority of taxpayers don't even want to eat it?

You need to read the various trade treaties(laws) applicable to treaty nations. They can, and do apply to other sovereign nations citizens civil/consumer rights/laws. Particularly, the right to sue. The treaty laws are an eye opener for those who care about civil and consumer law.

This court action is certainly not meaningless and that's why Sea Shepherd's lawyers are "very disappointed" and have to try to overturn the decision. SS is a registered NPO in the States ( 61 Clark Road North Battle Creek, MI 49037) and any violation of any US court order would endanger that tax-free status. Any US citizens involved (or citizens of other countries that embark in the US) would be liable to prosecution if the terms of the injunction have been broken.

Good on the US for doing this. I totally support this. I wish all countries would back such a move. They don't tell SS to stop all activity, just don't get physical. It'd be nice if SS can accomplish their goals without the eco-terrorism. I really won't feel bad if they lob a jar of acid onto the deck of a whaling ship and someone from that ship fires a few bullets back. ANY physical provocation is just instigation to a fight. And no matter how much of a "victim" those whiny environmentalists may claim to be, I won't be convinced it wasn't them that brought it on.

US laws apply on top of local laws for all US citizens and registered companies. They are not claiming any legal rights IN other places, rather just claiming the same restrictions their people and companies that absolutely all countries enforce.

Would that be restricted to federal law?
Was the injunction under federal law?

These are honest questions, I don't have enough knowledge about the US legal system in this respect.

Shame that the US court system would back this barbaric practice. I hope they see sense and lift the injunction.
In the meantime Sea Shepherd should move funds abroad whether the decision goes their way or not.

“In addition the Court has ignored the fact that the Japanese whalers are in contempt of a court order by the Australian Federal Court and the whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.”

Basically, it's not "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" covered in the judgement, rather "Australian Whale Sanctuary" which is in the fictional land called "Australian Antarctic Territory". No country has ever had internationally recognized territorial claims (only four recognize Australia's claim), and the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits claimants from establishing territorial sovereignty claims (including turning international waters into a country's "sanctuary"), and even mandates all issues be resolved at the International Court of Justice. The judgement was therefore in violation of Australian laws (at least signed treaties, which become equivalent to law), and unenforceable throughout the world.

Shame that the US court system would back this barbaric practice. I hope they see sense and lift the injunction.

The only thing "barbaric" is that people support eco-terrorists. The US has a mandate to not allow any terrorists, and that's why the group was forbidden from getting close enough to commit acts of violence.

The US supports actions to promote wildlife conservation, including an end to all whaling and killing of dolphins as well, but they understand violence is not the right way. I don't think anyone is against an end to whaling, just the methods these eco-terrorists use.

The movement is bigger than Paul Watson. If he is ever arrested, there will be another 10 Paul Watson's waiting to take his place.

At some point the old men running this whaling scam will come to the realisation that their time has past. They already have huge stock piles of frozen whale that they cannot sell to Japanese consumers.

Surely the government has better places to spend (give) tax payers money to like reconstruction and rehousing up north.

Oh hold on, we are taking about the Japanese government and Japanese big business ... so I guess not.

I think the US court ruling would only apply A/ if any of the vessels are registered in the US or B/ if any of the crew are US citizens. They do not have jurisdiction in international waters, unless in a case of piracy. (piracy-the act of robbery on the high seas.) So unless the SS is accused of robbing the Japanese of the whales,The courts ruling is totally useless.

I am glad the US courts are supporting the law correctly . Cowboy pirating may be popular in movies and anime but it has no place on the real seas. The whales can take their chances along with all other forms of life, that is evolution. And it is Japanese fishtermen's right to harvest the sea just as do the US fishermen who trawl for fish and crabs and are promoted on TV. No difference, and there should be no illegal attacking of anyone at sea under the guise of pseudo liberalism and militant conservation. Such lawless action just encourages more disregard for the agreed on law of the sea.

I think the US court ruling would only apply A/ if any of the vessels are registered in the US or B/ if any of the crew are US citizens.

It can also apply to organizations based in the US (or the US branch if it is based somewhere else) and all assets of the US based organization. In this case, Sea Shepard is entirely based in the USA and thus the organization and all of it's assets are liable under the ruling.

So unless the SS is accused of robbing the Japanese of the whales,The courts ruling is totally useless.

There are plenty of other rules and regulations they do fall under that can be tried on international court level (cutting of fishing lines, etc), but this ruling is enforceable worldwide due to the fact it is a US based organization, not because of any individual "employees" or port of registry for ships. .

The court case is to prevent attacks by ships. It is not a court case related to whaling.

No one believes US supports Japanese whaling activities. However, this does not automatically mean US courts must condone violence against whaling activities, or take no action against it.

It would be quite terrible court system if it did that. I suppose in Holland or Australia, such may be the case. Japan can count on the US to behave normally.

I hope they see sense and lift the injunction.

So American based eco-terror organization may continue attacks of other ships on high seas? I do not think your comment is rational.

In the meantime Sea Shepherd should move funds abroad whether the decision goes their way or not.

They should respect the law, rather than try to evade it.

Now we eagerly await ICJ court case decision for Australia and New Zealand against Japan. It is clearer all the time that whaling is just and legal. I also found Iceland's whale meat in my shopping center now. It is great news.

@HariHaruka...the lives endangered at sea are the whales...if whalers get in trouble due to folks trying to save whale lives so be it...when you cross a line be prepared for consequences.

Spell my name correctly.... KARI. KariHaruka..

You cannot justify murder. If your defense in court was 'well I was saving the whales' I hope you enjoy the taste of prison food. These people have families and for some that's the only way of getting income to support these families and you'd want to take the children's father away from them?

If Sea Shepherd want to protest whaling then they need to do it in a more peaceful manner because attempting to endanger lives at sea isn't the right way to go about it.

JanesBlondeDec. 19, 2012 - 03:58PM JST
The thing is, the whole SS movement is growing every year. First 1 ship, then 2 and now 3. If the whaling continues the SS fleet will just continue to grow.

I would guess that the whaling industry is capable of building more than one whaling ship per year. So, if the activists are planning on winning by having more ships, they will lose. Makes no difference how big the SS fleet gets, they will never out number those of their opponents. And, every single ship they have knocked out of commission will be felt many more times over than any whaling vessel sunk or damaged.

The movement is bigger than Paul Watson. If he is ever arrested, there will be another 10 Paul Watson's waiting to take his place.

Have you added your name to that list? If not then what are you waiting for? I have no doubt that their are people willing to step in a replace Mr. Watson if needed. But, once again this is a numbers battle that cannot be won.

I'de be interested to see a good point, let alone multiple points on why the legally valid, and morally necessary verdict against Sea Shepard is wrong. If you have some points, feel free to share, but I have yet to see a single anti-verdict statement that has anything to do with the verdict.

At some point the old men running this whaling scam will come to the realisation that their time has past. They already have huge stock piles of frozen whale that they cannot sell to Japanese consumers.

There are plenty of farmers in the US producing stuff that never reach consumer markets. Lots of it just sits in warehouses rotting away so that prices can be artificially maintained at a unnaturally high level. These farmers just keep producing 'cause they keep getting paid. They don't care who pays them. They only care how much they get. Commercial whaling will cease to exist the minute it no longer becomes profitable. As long as these companies are able to make their money, they will continue their activities. Makes no difference whether whale meat they produce is sold or not. If they still get paid for their catch, they will still hunt whales.

Surely the government has better places to spend (give) tax payers money to like reconstruction and rehousing up north.

Yes they do which is why this is where the battle needs to be fought. This is where the environmentalists should focus their energy. This is the only place that real change can be achieved.

Quite a lot of interesting views on this subject ranging from it doesn't matter (SS disagree) to the US has no rights (US legal department and the SS disagree) and the US is wrong to prevent people from throwing glass bottles at people's heads.

From my university studies I know enough about the IWC and whaling to form an opinion. I didn't study law and especially international law so I know nothing of US laws and how they effect the international waters/international laws but thankfully there are so many people on this board who are more knowledgeable on the subject than lawyers and judges.

Ihope2eatwhales, "The court case is to prevent attacks by ships. It is not a court case related to whaling."

So a court case where the plaintiffs are whalers and the defendants are whale protesters is not about whaling? Pull the other one fella it's got bells on!

As far as I can tell, the injunction is there to allow time for the appeal to be heard. Whatever tactic the whalers use to scrape a bit of space to conduct their work is simply that, a tactic, a ploy if you like. One of a long line of ploys employed for many years now. Sadly this time the court system of an anti whaling nation has been used. I hope the US sees this for what it is and provides evidence in support of New Zealand and Australia in the forthcoming case against Japan's whalers at the ICJ.

In the mean time we trust the US court system will reject the whalers appeal in a timely fashion.

Well, if SS claims that whales are intelligent creature nobody stops them from communicating with them and explain the dangers the Japanese ships represent.

Another idea - not so stupid though - is to find means of scaring the whales away from the whalers, or to convince them to follow the SS fleet, again, away from the danger. In other words, exploit the intelligence the whales are supposed to have.

I know, I know, it is so much more easier, and looks much better on Discovery Channel if there are actual crashes and destroyed ships (in other words, the terrorist behavior is the one bringing the neo-nazi SS better coverage AND more money).

Yes, and let's also talk about the ocean pollution the SS ships and helicopters and rotten butter produces.

So a court case where the plaintiffs are whalers and the defendants are whale protesters is not about whaling?

Whaling is irrelevant to the court case. It's like saying this is a decision against people wearing red shits because one of the Sea Shepard guys wears red. While the parties are involved in whaling activities, the court case has to do with harassment and putting ships in danger, not with whether or not whaling is good or bad. All people have freedom from vigilante justice (in the US courts), doesn't matter if they themselves are innocent or not.

Basroll if is saw someone wearing a red shit I'd advise seeing the doctor. To say this case is irrelevant to whaling is nonsense. Bringing the appeal at this time is designed specifically to hinder Sea Shepherds actions at this hunt.

I hope the US sees this for what it is and provides evidence in support of New Zealand and Australia in the forthcoming case against Japan's whalers at the ICJ.

Evidence of what?
Does US have some information that Australia and New Zealand does not?
On contrary, US criticised Australia when it made the case with ICJ.
The reason is simple. It is because US knows whaling law very well. They do not have such pressure as Australia to make emotional political decision about it. They are quite mature, even as anti-whalers. For example, they would attempt in the past to stop Japanese whaling by including other fisheries rights in the negotiations. Very clever, and unfortunately Japan was not so.

Please do not have the heart attack when Australia and New Zealand lose ICJ case against Japan.

In the mean time we trust the US court system will reject the whalers appeal in a timely fashion.

It would mean US law accepts dangerous acts at sea. Unless there is some technical problem, I can not imagine a proper court system could allow such violence, for any purpose.

Bringing the appeal at this time is designed specifically to hinder Sea Shepherds actions at this hunt.

You do understand you're contradicting yourself right? An appeal, by definition, is made after an initial verdict. That verdict was in Feb 2012, so why does your comment make any sense when the appeal was made Oct. 9th and results not released until two and a half months later?

If he is ever arrested, there will be another 10 Paul Watson's (sic) waiting to take his place.

You can bet on it! It has proved to be a very lucrative business for Mr. Watson. In fact, he has become rich enough to pay and then forfeit the $319,200 bail money he paid in Germany. (I wonder how much of that cash was from the hard-earned money of supporters that donated to the Sea Shepherd business?)

Ihope2eatwhales, thanks for thinking of my health, it shows there is a level of humanity in you. Perhaps you should focus that on persuading the whalers to find a humane killing method. It would make a change from the usual bluster and bravado but I imagine have little more effect.

"Unless there is some technical problem, I can not imagine a proper court system could allow such violence, for any purpose."

Seems to me there wouldn't be an appeal by the whalers if the US court system hadn't already rejected the whalers claims.

Basroll, in what way am I contradicting myself? The article says the US court has yet to issue its opinion on the appeal. Ihope2eatwhales even believes the timing makes good sense. The initial verdict was issued in February, why wait until October to Lodge an appeal of they aren't working the system? I believe the whalers are immoral and bestial, not stupid.

Seems to me there wouldn't be an appeal by the whalers if the US court system hadn't already rejected the whalers claims....The initial verdict was issued in February, why wait until October to Lodge an appeal of they aren't working the system?

The claims weren't rejected, the case was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction. That's why it was allowed to go to the appeal, which was originally filed in April 11, 2012 (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/12-35266/) and argued and submitted for judgement in Oct. These things take time, but not because of either party, just a slow system.

The article says the US court has yet to issue its opinion on the appeal.

That's irrelevant to the verdict. The verdict is already set, now the judge just needs to file the paperwork saying why the verdict was reached.

Wow, a lot of posters wanting to kill or damage SS and crew. Accusing them of endangering lives. Completely blind to the killing and murder of whales by the Japanese. The whales are the ones actually being slaughtered...and for nothing defend-able. Give it up, Japan. Go SS!

This is really annoying, just when SS were looking forward to trying out their new... hehehe... ex-Japanese ship on the whalers! Sure it was a super cheap deal for a great ship, but it wasn't THAT cheap!

American courts, underhand, foul, boo, hiss....grrrrrr...

Actually I tend to agree with some of the posters above that there are probably better ways to get the whalers to hang up their waterproofs and call it a day.

Basroll it's hardly irrelevant if an injunction is issued while awaiting the courts opinion. Unless you have a verdict, the only pressure that can be applied to Sea Shepherd is to issue an injunction. Was the injunction applied for at the time the case was heard? The US legal system would indeed be slow if it took two months to get one.

haha whalers complete ignore the Australian court order so why should SS take any notice if the US one?
US has no jurisdiction in International waters, give them hell SS, love how there new boat is a Japanese ex whaling vessel LOL

@nandakandamanda yes but if the wind blows long enough the man will die of hypothemia, other words whalers (man) will eventually die from wind exposure (SS) aka how long the J gov is prepared to finance a loss making venture.

One of the most precious rights of the U.S. Constitution is the right of the people to protest. The court is WRONG for trying to say that a group of people can not protest and to top it off that they can not protest in international territory where the court has no jurisdiction.

As this continues through the progression of appeals it will have to be found an unconstitutional ruling.

Captain Watson and his group are not going to change, they are going to continue after the whaling fleet "business as usual." Right or wrong we can all see which side the posters above will take on that.

But I can see that if the U.S. court wants the whalers left alone, the court is going to have to convince the U.S. Navy to send resources down south to "protect" the whaling fleet. A move which would probably be politically unacceptable given the financial status of our two countries at the moment, as well as other reasons.

Protesting and placing other human lives at risk are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Trying to maroon a ship at high seas by entangling a rope to the screw is a serious threat and that goes up and beyond the level of protesting and considered pirating.

The US can do much more damage by simply removing the NGO status of SS and branding them as a terrorist organazation in which any and all supporting SS will be held as accomplices under the patriot act. Let's see how SS wiggle out of that predicment.

But I can see that if the U.S. court wants the whalers left alone, the court is going to have to convince the U.S. Navy to send resources down south to "protect" the whaling flee

No, they can recommend plenty of legal countermeasures including liquidating their assets for monetary compensation (very unlikely, but could include all those ships they are fond of) or removing the company from tax exempt status (could happen, and the courts wouldn't even need to do anything, the IRS would likely get a call to do it from congress) or even adding them to banking blacklists (not likely unless someone gets seriously injured or a ship goes down).

Frank VaughnDec. 19, 2012 - 11:29PM JST
One of the most precious rights of the U.S. Constitution is the right of the people to protest. The court is WRONG for trying to say that a group of people can not protest and to top it off that they can not protest in international territory where the court has no jurisdiction.

You're completely barking up the wrong tree. The original action filed against SSCS last year and this subsequent
injunction have NOTHING to do with the right to protest.
The action addressed acts of violence at sea that puts human lives and property at risk.
If SSCS were a real conservation group, instead of eco-terrorists, this injunction would not have been ordered.

The court has full jurisdiction, and in the original court case it was noted in the opinion that neither Sea Shepard nor Watson himself denied that the court had jurisdiction. The organization is based in the USA and therefore always falls under the US jurisdiction (non-exclusively, if they violated laws in another country, the US courts can allow charges on top of whatever charges sought by the local system). The US laws specifically state you can't attack a fishing boat, even the lines are protected, and they have done it several times in the past. The court system recognized a danger posed by their reckless actions and ordered a buffer zone. It's no different than a restraining order on an abusive spouse, it's legally binding everywhere, though only punishable in the US.

They should move out of the USA and tell the court to stick it! The court could send a Naval ship and board the Sea Sheppard ships and take them by force on in international waters. Could the Americans declare they will enforce US law in all international waters?

They could, but then they will have to pay massive income taxes because they can't get around the fact most of their monetary support goes through the US.

The court could send a Naval ship and board the Sea Sheppard ships and take them by force on in international waters.

No, they can't. There's a separation of powers in the US, which means the courts can never order military action, only civil action (send the cops to raid their dock and buildings).

Could the Americans declare they will enforce US law in all international waters?

They haven't. The court order is on the company that is Sea Shepard, which also happens owns the boats and pay expenses and salaries to the eco-terrorists. Since the company is US based, they are within the jurisdiction of the US. It's no different than someone that works in one place and lives in another, you need to respect both laws.

OssanAmericaDec. 20, 2012 - 01:22AM JST

Why didn't SSCS just vow to ignore it?

It would be a case for contempt of court for sure, and quite illegal since the Sea Shepard lawyers had agreed with the first judge that the court should have jurisdiction over the case. Unlike the germany case where they have nothing to lose by making their leader a wanted fugitive, here they could lose tax exempt status and completely fall apart (not to mention having their leader be arrested for contempt of court, then handed over to whoever wants him first without ever actually going to trial).

basroil if they follow it the whaling fleet will have many years to do whatever they want. Perhaps the Blue Whale is "tasty" and they need a few to "study". This fleet would empty the seas for profit today. Wonders how much whale meat their processing ship can carry? This ruling clears the way for Japan to vacuum clean the ocean of life.

Think of them more like eco-pests as using "terrorist" is too strong. Perhaps the US government cold declare the anti base people "terrorist" as well and have them arrested.

A true "eco-terrorist" would kill the whalers, loggers, fishermen, etc. Sea Sheppard is using non lethal ways to keep the fleet from whaling. That word (eco-terrorist) is being overused and is losing its meaning. Do wonder if this is part of the "package" that allows the US to have a new airfield in Okinawa?

basroil, why would they pay income tax in America when they have no income in America. I know better and if they are taxed it would only be in their new country.

Basically, it's not "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" covered in the judgement, rather "Australian Whale Sanctuary" which is in the fictional land called "Australian Antarctic Territory". No country has ever had internationally recognized territorial claims (only four recognize Australia's claim), and the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits claimants from establishing territorial sovereignty claims (including turning international waters into a country's "sanctuary"), and even mandates all issues be resolved at the International Court of Justice. The judgement was therefore in violation of Australian laws (at least signed treaties, which become equivalent to law), and unenforceable throughout the world.

Ah so you are using the Antarctic treaty as the basis for your argument here! Well then you would in that case be aware that Australia's Antarctic territory claim predates the Antarctic treaty by a mere 100 years. You would also be aware that contingent to Australia signing the Antarctic treaty there is a clause in the treaty that states by signing and agreeing to the treaty in no way diminishes or negates the pre existing territorial claim. But you knew that now didnt you basroil?

Oh and basroil, what is the difference between Japan using its coast guard to force Chinese fishermen out of its claimed waters. Waters that no other nation supports its sovereignty claim over and an Australian court handing down a ruling that Japan is breaching australian law by entering waters it claims as its own. What's good for one is good for both. Oh wait sorry we are talking Japan here who thinks it can do as it pleases where it pleases...

Ah so you are using the Antarctic treaty as the basis for your argument here! Well then you would in that case be aware that Australia's Antarctic territory claim predates the Antarctic treaty by a mere 100 years. You would also be aware that contingent to Australia signing the Antarctic treaty there is a clause in the treaty that states by signing and agreeing to the treaty in no way diminishes or negates the pre existing territorial claim. But you knew that now didnt you basroil?

Unfortunately, one can argue the validity of the territorial claim til cows come home but the concept of "territorial sea" (12 nm) was established via UNCLOS in 1982. ATS which was signed in 1959 under article 4 which states no new claims (in this case "territorial sea" under UNCLOS) shall be asserted while the treaty is in force. In this case the pre-existing Treaty (ATS) diminishes the "territorial sea" aspect of Australia in the Antarctic.

YuriOtaniDec. 20, 2012 - 03:25AM JST
A true "eco-terrorist" would kill the whalers, loggers, fishermen, etc. Sea Sheppard is using non lethal ways to keep the fleet from whaling. That word (eco-terrorist) is being overused and is losing its meaning.

"The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

The term is not losing it's meaning, it's simply being thrown about and interpreted by people who have
no idea what it means.

Yuri, if it was a Chinese ship throwing acid at fishing boats near Senkaku what would your reaction be? Terrorists are terrorists, it doesn't matter what stupid cause they believe in. Violence is not tolerated by law. Simply not liking something or an activity does NOT grant you the right to use violence at a form of "protest".

Bored to Tears, that is because it is in Japanese waters. Notice the whaling ships are Japanese but I do not object. My objection is a lack of jurisdiction. Now if a Japanese court would order them to say away it would be different. They need to grow a spine and not let the Americans do their dirty work. It is wrong to ask our friends the Americans to do this action.

I do say someone has to stop Japan from emptying the seas of life. They could catch every whale and then pine over their demise.

Yuri, so you would have no problem with Chinese ships doing the same thing the SS does as long as they did it in international waters? Really? As far as I'm concerned nobody has jurisdiction in international waters, until criminal activity is perpetrated, then ALL countries have a responsibility to uphold international sea laws. What the SS does is terrorism plain and simple. The fact that you agree with saving whales has nothing to do with whaling being legal and illegal. Whether you believe it's a loophole or not, the IWC allows the whalers to hunt a limited number of whales. If you or anybody else doesn't agree with that, you need to petition the Japanese government and the IWC. Trying to kill Japanese sailors is NOT the answer.

Whale killing method is humane in my opinion, but please do not change subject. Subject is court issue.

Ihope2eatwhales even believes the timing makes good sense.

If they used good timing to file appeal, it was clever use of court systems. However they wished to stop Sea Shepherd's attacks last year. I think it is fortunate that this year they were able to get US court actions.

Sea Shepherd are criminals so they will ignore ruling anyway.

I believe the whalers are immoral and bestial

Your personal belief has nothing to do with law. And it should not. (You agree about this one, I hope.)

You would also be aware that contingent to Australia signing the Antarctic treaty there is a clause in the treaty that states by signing and agreeing to the treaty in no way diminishes or negates the pre existing territorial claim.

However, as nigelboy pointed out, and I have stated before, the treaty forbids them from asserting claims in addition to others not making them. They are specifically barred from taking matters into their own hands, and any disputes must be resolved at the ICJ. That means no local court can make assertions of illegal practices in Antarctic waters. But of course you knew that didn't you?

YuriOtaniDec. 20, 2012 - 08:39AM JST

My objection is a lack of jurisdiction. Now if a Japanese court would order them to say away it would be different.

It would be different because JAPANESE COURTS LACK JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE. The company they are seeking an injunction on is an American company in international waters, so only the company's home base gives anyone jurisdiction. If they had been tried in Japanese courts, it would have been fast but meaningless, as they have all legal authority to ignore it as the Japanese cannot order a foreign company operating outside Japan to do anything.

OssanAmericaDec. 20, 2012 - 07:01AM JST

"The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

In this case, the simple act of throwing bottles of acid are enough to be considered violence, and the criminal nature is the interference with legal activities of the whalers (both US and international laws covering fishing). The group is not part of a national government, and it sure as hell is eco-political. Even if it wasn't, the mere fact it's televised fulfills the second section.

These are eco-terrorists, and have been called so, justly, by many countries. US has been beyond generous by not labeling them as such so far, but if they break injunction they could be, and that would mean forfeiture of all assets including their beloved ships.

Basroil, "All the Japanese crews want is the injunction, so the verdict they want is this injunction. They have asked for nothing else."

According to Glenn Inwood the ICR's mouthpiece outside Japan, on Australian radio, this is one of a series of actions the whalers are taking. The injunction isn't all there is and the ICRs comments don't indicate this is all they want.

ihope2eatwhales, "Whale killing method is humane in my opinion, but please do not change subject. Subject is court issue".

Well you changed the subject by worrying about my well being matey. But let's not skirt the issue, whaling and the killing method are the central issue. Without them there would be no moratorium, no 'research whaling', no protests and no court actions.

Your opinion on the killing method is in conflict with most members of the IWC. For example, Norway invests in research to find a better method. They train their gunners more thoroughly than Japan's whalers and have a much better track record in accuracy and instant kill. The killing method does not kill instantly, or even at its most efficient at a rate that is acceptable in any other industry. And Japan's whalers instant kill rate is poor, even in comparison to other whaling nations.

That Japan has wormed its way through the legal minefield confounding attempts to reign its whalers in over the years is what's created groups like Sea Shepherd. As long as Japan's whalers continue to play the game they do, anti whaling countries will continue to take note. I hope the US authorities are duly embarrassed by what's going on in their country and support Oz and Kiwi at the ICJ, overtly or otherwise in demonstrating that Japan's whaling industry is a commercial activity in all but name and prove to the world that they are in fact breaking the law.

According to Glenn Inwood the ICR's mouthpiece outside Japan, on Australian radio, this is one of a series of actions the whalers are taking. The injunction isn't all there is and the ICRs comments don't indicate this is all they want.

We aren't here to discuss the group's intentions overall, only the injunction case. The legal case represented here is ONLY FOR AN INJUNCTION, there are no other reasons stated, and none will be added at this level. Anything else is clearly pointless to discuss because it is well outside the scope of this article.

Basroil, don't be silly. We're all here to put our point of view, hopefully civilly. The ongoing subject is whaling, it comes up often and is a favourite on this website. The whalers intentions are central to the issue. If you want to somehow limit the discussion to suit your agenda prepare for disappointment. My opinion on Japan's whalers abuse of the US legal system for their own ends is clearly within the scope of the discussion and especially the article.

Can see some aliens arguing about hunting humans. One side would claim they are intelligent and the other would say there are a lot of them and they are not endangered. Am against the hunting of whales as they are intelligent. Perhaps more so than humans. Japan is using taxpayer money and a loophole to make the hunt. Their "research" has no value at all. If Japan stopped paying for the hunt it would end and thus end the problem.

basroil, of course Japan has jurisdiction as the whalers are Japanese. Their ships are registered in Japan and think at least one is owned by the government of Japan. Of course any ruling from them would be ineffective.

BoredToTears the Chinese fishermen have no "beef" with the Okinawa or Japanese fishermen. If they were abusing the law to poach fish then they would have the right. However as far as I know things are calm.

ihope2eatwhales what is stopping you? Go to a supermarket and say "geiniku onigoshimasu". You will have some raw whale meat in no time. Remember whale is not fish but mammal. Oh there was a study done that geiniku has 100 times the government limit of mercury. Eat enough of it and it would be like ingesting a thermometer. Enjoy your whale meat...

of course Japan has jurisdiction as the whalers are Japanese. Of course any ruling from them would be ineffective.

The injuction isn't against the whalers, it's against Sea Shepard. Sea Shepard has no headquarters in Japan, and as such no Japanese court will ever have jurisdiction outside Japanese waters.

Their ships are registered in Japan and think at least one is owned by the government of Japan.

No, Sea Shepard ships are owned by the American company, and no ship is registered out of Japan, most are Australian or dutch ports. One WAS at some point owned by the Japanese government, but it's been several since they sold it to someone else (and recently purchased from someone completely unrelated to the Japanese government.

Akemi, even the whales can be delicious, the hunting must be regulated. They are not only food: as many of animals around the world they help stabilize the environment. If they become much less that will afect the whole planet, and that's it's more important than culinary culture.

Besides, saying the whale hunting is for scientific research in order to get their meat is lying to every nation who wants to support Japan. I love Japan, but I can't be agree with this.

US can still arrest them since it is an American ship. By the way why no one do nothing about other animals in extinction? Every time humans eat tons of food animals they are gradually converted in human being.

Anarchy of this sort is destructive to his purported cause. A more democratic and liberal way is to have the Sam Shepard dock in Tokyo and have a fair where people can understand why whale-eating maybe tasty and the moral equivalent of eating pork or dogs -- it is unnecessary.
Maybe try and make a Disney whale character, or some whale cartoons out of Moby Dick.

So let me get this straight. A US court can tell Dutch and Australian flagged ships, owned by non US charities, carrying an International crew, operating out of Australian and New Zealander ports, that they cannot interfere with Japanese ships in International and the Australian Antarctic Economic Zone that are whaling in contempt of the Australian Federal Court in Australian waters and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Right...

For those who think there's nothing wrong with whaling, or don't understand why someone would risk their life to defend them, please see this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCX2Du4bO5w&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeCX2Du4bO5w&has_verified=1

Are you kidding me! Sea Shepherd are terrorists! Get bloody real! God bless Paul Watson and all the non-violent volunteers that aid SS in their fight to end ILLEGAL WHALING by a nation whose so called research is absolute nonsense! As a wildlife biologist I can say the so called research being done is nothing more than a front to sell whale meat!